“In horror honor of yesterday’s announcement of the newly-designed third-generation iPod nano, we here at Infinite Loop have taken some time to look back at the last 10 years of Apple product design in order to get some perspective on just how hideous the new Apple audio player is (to some of us). This list isn’t to say that some of these Apple monstrosities don’t have a special place in our heart, though.”
It’s too expensive
and
it’s ugly.
Nothing to see here, move ahead.
The best-looking iPods were the 5G classics and the first gen nanos. They were the pure black/white ones with a plastic, sleek translucent cover. The brushed metal was never that visually exciting, but these beveled washed out ones are down right ugly.
This is written only because it’s Apple. Dell, HP, Gateway, Packard Bell — all have released designs that are, looking back, silly. That’s what happens when you go for style, it fades. If you aren’t interesting, you’re just boring.
Who can forget Polyester Plaids, Bell Bottoms the fashion of yesterday is an embarrassment for today. Same goes for the toilet seat (iBook clamshell). I am going to quote a cliché “Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder”. What maybe beautiful for you might not be for me and vice-versa.
>This is written only because it’s Apple.
Of course they are defining themselves with couture, not technology.
>That’s what happens when you go for style, it fades.
The first iMac was a mere joke back in the 90s too, it was the advent of Jobs couture line of products.
The sad thing is, all they would have to do to make it look decent – is put the scroll wheel to right of the screen.
Edited 2007-09-06 23:38
And immediately make it unusable for all left handed people ? Symmetric designs work best to avoid problems with ‘handedness’
I should have explained what I meant better O:-). More or less it should be long and skinny and not short and wide. The only time the controls have to be, to the left(or right), is when watching a video or looking at photos. And you could always allow the users to change the orientation, like the Creative V+ players do.
Well, a few years down the road, we’re all gonna look back on what Apple makes now and think it’s ugly.
Edited 2007-09-06 23:44
“a few years down the road”?
I’m honestly starting to think that Apple fanboys really are crazy. This thing looks just like a short regular ipod. The same ipod that they’ve been drooling over for years. But make it shorter and all of a sudden it’s ugly and hideous? What’s wrong with you people? The only thing wrong with the Nano IMO is it doesn’t come in 16GB which is what I was looking forward to getting (already have an 8GB Nano).
“(already have an 8GB Nano)”
LOL…. hes starts off cracking on ‘those Apple Fan Boys” then admits that is IS one him self!!! what a dork!
Apparently, his logic is a bit lost on me as well. According to that post, if you criticize the design because it’s ugly and dismiss apple’s product, you’re an apple fanboy. If you admit to already owning one of the overpriced little bastards, claim it’s almost the same as the previous one, and mindlessly defend apple, that makes you not a fanboy? Clearly the meaning of fanboy is different in this alternate universe.
…now you’re a fanboy for owning a single item from a specific vendor (Apple, in this case) and then dare yourself to go one step further and partly defend a revision of the product you own, yet while you admit to a certain feature you’d like to see from this particular product?
It actually sounds to me as if he own one of the older Nanos… Read the ‘already have an 8GB Nano’ statement …
Then you’d easily become a Linux Zealot for using the 2.6.20 kernel while wanting a feature from one of the newer kernels and yet dislike the increasing size of it …
By the way … Why all this silly name calling anyways? It just seems sooo preschool to me …
I agree with jaylaa, as I do not understand how this model can be considered so ugly, when it essentially looks exactly the same as any other ipod style wise.
But then again I have to admit I am particularly biased against ipods as I feel they are nothing more than just trendy marketing hype. I don’t know what it is exactly, but I just do not get the ipod craze. For me, since my Sony cell has 1GB space for Mp3s, I would have no use than to carry another device around with me.
Is there something special about ipods that make them better than competing products that offer more space for less price?
To be honest, the only apple product I own is a 2nd gen. iPod nano (8gb). So let’s look to reasons why did I bought it:
-It was the smallest 8GB mp3 player at the time I was shopping and 8GB sansa was coming to same price with it.
-I like the way that ipod organizes music in it and I can sync it with linux.
-Since I’m listening to music ~8 hours a day, carrying a cell phone to everywhere is not an option and; I don’t like combination devices (I own a very basic phone, a full fledged PDA and a MP3 player and I generally carry a messenger bag)
-I wanted a device to last with good build quality so iPod had a +1 on it too (I like metal over plastics)
So What’s the result with it? I’ve paid a fair amount of money to apple to own it but, I like the interface, it’s easy to use, it sounds good enough (sometimes I miss my Type-S MD player though), it’s very small, I recharge it once a week, use with linux (I don’t use windows for anything) and it just blends in my life.
I think my next mp3 player will be an iPod too but I’ll not buy a new one until mine dies because of battery suffering or electronic problems.
If sony released their latest devices before AND if I could use them with linux, I’d buy one of these beacuse of the sound quality but, they’ve lost me (only in portable music arena) because of the syncing problem.
Edit: Typos
Edited 2007-09-07 06:42
I’m surprised to read some people don’t like the new nanos: I personally find them beautiful. chris
“This thing looks just like a short regular ipod.”
I was thinking the same thing. I cant figure out why this design would so upset someone.
No, I’m not a Apple fanboy, I have never owned (or even used) an Apple product in my life, but saying that this is hideously ugly is just, well, really strange.
1. Initial idea: “You know how UNBEARABLY HORRIBLE that new iPod looks? I bet there are HEAPS of other Apple products that look shitty, but noone’s noticed until now!”
2. After 30 minutes research: “Haha, that old eMate really does look horrible, and so do those flower power iMacs! Hmm… gotta be something that looks lame in the past few years though…”
3. After realising how bad the idea was: “OK, OK, I’ve got it: the iMac G5! Yes, barely tolerable, I mean it looks like a thick monitor! And the iPod Shuffle, it’s a stick, who likes sticks…”
Hah, I was going to reply to this effect, but this was spot on. Well-played, my good sir!
I pulled a massive WTF with the iMac G5. The machine is beautiful! And the B&W G3? What is wrong with this guy…
Obviously you’ve never read Ars, they don’t let just anyone post over there.
And yet this article appeared … Hmm.
Ars used to be very nice, but its increasingly turning into an Apple trivia site. They seem now to be posting a series of photos of someone taking the thing out of its box. This is truly the weirder shores of something.
I mean, why don’t we all start up allegedly informative technical sites, and show stuff like a pair of hands unpacking a couple of memory modules from a box, maybe a usb pen drive, a seagate disk, then a WD disk, stuff like that. Maybe a Dell laptop. Maybe lets keep doing it over and over again. I know packaging is quite a technical subject, but there’s not even any commentary to help those of us who are non-specialists in it. Like, what grade of styrofoam is that, anyway, and why?
Pity, it used to be good, thorough and informative. But its getting taken over by complete nutters.
Edited 2007-09-07 12:10
Thought the same thing about a quarter of the way in.
The Blue and White G3 is a great looking machine. So is the iMac G5, one of my favorites of anything they have ever made looks wise. The Emac was fine also but I did think that AIO Molar G3 was pretty hideous though!
The only thing I have against the new NANO is it will no longer fit in my small Coin pocket on a pair of Levi’s. Otherwise it’s fine but I really don’t care about Videos on a 2″ screen.
Looks good to me:
More Lines of Text
Longer Lines
Video
Price $150
Apple’s ROFL All the Way to the Bank.
This is a dumb article.
What a subjective term.
When these things were designed, they were designed in keeping with what the fashion trend was for that day. When each of these products were released, they were considered awesome, cool, on the cutting edge of design, trend setters.
I owned an iBook ‘candy’ one with the handle, and I used it at Polytech; it was a great machine, did everything I needed – would I buy it again if it had better specifications – sure, it was rugged and reliable unlike todays laptops.
Indeed. With the exception of maybe the eMate (wich could quite possibly have been cool-looking for its’time) I dont find any of the things listed to be ugly. Sure, maybe they won’t blow you away with their awesome design but ugly? Wtf?
“However, most of us are men, and men with bad color taste”
I’ve come to the conclusion that you guys completely lack understanding of what taste, or even ugly, is.
Edited 2007-09-07 04:24
The eMate was kinda of different but one has to look at the target market; it appears to be a education device – so it’ll probably appeal to their target audience, kids. So for its target audience, its ideal. It has a cool ‘technology’ and ‘computer’ vibe going with it.
I tend not to call something ugly, but instead, look at whether or not it is functional device and whether there are fivilous additions that don’t need to be be there.
When you look at Apple gear compared to the PC world, there are very few vendors who can hold a candle to it. Thinkpad is probably one that comes to mind which comes close to the astetic appeal of Apple products, most out there seem to cut corners and functionalit for the same of lowering the price.
..and be paid to whine about how a product horrifies me?
Only a candyass would come up with this as a deadline filler article.
You do realize this isn’t an article but someone’s journal entry, yes? Ergo just for fun, not for the front page.
You do realize this isn’t an article but someone’s journal entry, yes? Ergo just for fun, not for the front page.
And yet there it is, on the front page of OSNews.com…
The first thing I thought when I read that the iMac G5 is ugly: “but the original Intel iMacs aren’t?”
Seriously though, I think that the G5 and early Intel iMacs look fine and that the new iMacs look bad. Others are gaga over the aluminum finish, glossy screens, and thinness. (Uh, but the base is roughly the same size so thinness doesn’t save deskspace!)
Most people seem to hate the toilet seat iBooks, but I think that they look kinda cool and have heard that they are rather rugged.
Though I will agree: the New World G3’s looked bad. I have nothing against the shape of the case (G4 towers looked nice). The colour is so-so. But that G3 etched into the side looks lousy. That, and it dates the machine real fast.
Edited 2007-09-07 04:31
I don’t understand why this is linked on osnews. It does not have any interesting content, it is just a guy saying that he does not like a new product without any real solid arguments to support his claims.
And guess what, it is linked by Thom, what a surprise!!!!!!
On another page of arstechinca itself, there are some unboxing photos of the new ipod nano, it looks just awesome to me.
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/09/06/ipod-classic-a…
And guess what, it is linked by Thom, what a surprise!!!!!!
Sorry, I forgot that you are not supposed to link to, or talk about, anything negative about The Holy Apple and its Glorious Leader, His Steveness.
This is just a fun article about some Apple products Ars thinks are ugly. The fact that people attack this author so vigorously (even discrediting one of the best websites out there, Ars), just goes to show how completely out of touch with reality some of you Apple fanboys are.
I don’t care much for either Apple or Steve (both pretty overrated imho) but even so…
Funny? Perhaps if the author had been in possession of some wit and/or style it could have been but both of those are sadly lacking. Instead it’s just a lackluster attempt at poking fun at Apple by calling products ugly that obviously aren’t.
It’s just a bad and boring article, whether you’re a fanboi or not.
The only thing(s) I didn’t like were the power flower iMac and that beige G3, I don’t have an iPod (nor I will have one soon) but how can be the new iPod uglier than the last one? I really don’t understand why the iMac G5 and blue,white G3 were ugly.
Definitely a stupid article. iMac G4 was really beautiful but that doesn’t make iMac G5 ugly. iMac G5 is really sexy and this comes from my windows die hard friends.
Well, the iMac g5 needs to grow on you (the beard! The beard!), but I agree, the iMac G4 is a thing of sheer beauty (I used to own one). Love that thing.
even dell and others have ugly computers
Am I the only person on this planet that loves the design of the G4 iMac?
It is by far the best designed computer I’ve ever seen.
Seems a shame it is just fobbed off as a disaster. I’d love to buy an intel iMac in that design… alas it’s just not to be.
The circular mainboard was probably what did it in. Rectangular PCBs are easier to make.
Ugly? That’s a matter of taste. But, I think It’s only because we’re used to seeing an oblong screened iPods. Nobody seemed to complain about the squat Shuffle.
Apple will be laughing all the way to the bank because this thing will sell better than the world’s current most popular mp3 player, the previous iteration of the iPod nano.
Hideously ugly is also a four letter word – ZUNE.
The perfect flamewar starter.
Could have been writen by a troll.
Edited 2007-09-07 10:42
I confess, I really like the Flower Power iMac.
Back then, Jobs was comparing the iMac to the New Beetle and this was their take on the 1960s hippy VW. It’s totally unique and it looked good in the flesh.
Only my failure to embrace my feminine side prevented me from buying the thing.
I love my eMate, which I bought a few years ago for $10. I’m a nerd. And I think it was quite well designed for its time, not ugly at all.
I also still use my powerbook 2400, which I bought for $25, released in the same year (1997/98). It’s teeny and light, the same size as the smaller macbooks are today.
Nothing against modern technology. I just think most people don’t realize how well designed the old stuff was.
Edited 2007-09-07 17:03
I own a 2gb Nano, and it’s a really nice device.
But while I was initially off put but the looks of this thing, that wide screen and the new UI is pretty slick.
I think that the new device has a bit more “handiness” than the original nano. It’s bigger in the right places for the right reasons, and it gains a robustness that the original nano doesn’t have.
Not to say the original nano isn’t durable, but it has a fragile feel to it because of its diminutive size.
The new nano gives us a better screen and a larger control wheel, so we get some better ergonomics for operation.
It’s proportioned better tending more to the square than to the stick form, and that makes it more pocketable. The rounded, smooth corners also relate to this. This device won’t catch on anything as it goes in to a pocket or purse.
It is “handier” because it fits the hand better than the stick form, it’s easier to read, and easier to use. Video is a bonus.
I’m really impressed by the new design. Wish it had 16GB :-).
Now, I’m looking forward to a Touch Nano, where they get rid of the scroll wheel completely, and all we have is a smooth framed LCD.
OSNews is becoming a sensationalist site, like many other sites. “Let’s see, what can we post today that will cause the most responses and start long threaded arguments?”
At least there really are SOME good articles sprinkled in with the crap.
Why is the Nano so ugly? It just looks like a squat iPod Video. I think it looks fine, and still far more visually appealing than any other brand mp3 player, such as the Zune, Creative, Sansa, etc.
But I guess that’s just my opinion.
I understand the feelings behind the article but people like what they like.
Certainly, when the iPod video was revealed with its wide, fat shape, it shocked people, especially those expecting a widescreen iPod. The new nano shouldn’t shock anyone since, as people have said, it looks like the full-sized iPod. The new colours tie it to the revised shuffle.
Funny that the author selected the iMac G5 as horrible since just as many people have found it pleasant and the iMac G4 and the latest Alumi iMac horrible.
You can’t please everyone. Besides, I have a protective case on my iPod so it doesn’t quite matter how it looks, only how well it plays my music.
read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
That’s why the new ipod nano doesn’t look good.
It’s not a good looking rectangle.
I also agree with the emac (horrible screen) and the G5 imac, just too much white plastic surrounding the screen.
I did like the flower imac when I saw it in the store, does work in flowershops
This article reminds me of a quote from the book iWoz I recently read. Woz said that what Steve (Jobs) does best is make people feel passionate about computers and Apple. It’s pretty clear in articles like these, you’ve got people who love the designs, people who hate them but always with passion.
Personally I don’t think Apple has had a bad design since the original iMac. There’ve been designs that weren’t for me, but never a really bad one.